MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388630502 · doi:10.1186/s13643-023-02377-0

Global prevalence of COVID-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4388630502 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Abere Woretaw Azagew, Zerko Wako Beko, Yohannes Mulu Ferede, Habtamu Sewunet Mekonnen, Hailemichael Kindie Abate, Chilot Kassa Mekonnen

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisPublication biasFunnel plotCochrane LibraryMEDLINESubgroup analysisARDSSystematic reviewInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is potentially a fatal form of respiratory failure among COVID-19 patients. Globally, there are inconsistent findings regarding ARDS among COVID-19 patients. Therefore, this study aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of COVID-19-induced ARDS among COVID-19 patients worldwide. Methods To retrieve relevant studies, the authors searched Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google, and Google Scholar using a combination of search terms. The search was conducted for articles published from December 2019 to September 2022. Articles were searched and screened by title (ti), abstract (ab), and full-text (ft) by two reviewers independently. The quality of each included article was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Assessment Scale. Data were entered into Microsoft Word and exported to Stata version 14 for analysis. Heterogeneity was detected using the Cochrane Q statistics and I -square ( I 2 ). Then the sources of variations were identified by subgroup and meta-regression analysis. A random effect meta-analysis model was used. The publication bias was detected using the graphic asymmetry test of the funnel plot and/or Egger’s test ( p value < 0.05). To treat the potential publication bias, trim and fill analysis were computed. The protocol has been registered in an international database, the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with reference number: CRD42023438277. Results A total of 794 studies worldwide were screened for their eligibility. Of these 11 studies with 2845 participants were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The overall pooled prevalence of COVID-19-induced ARDS in the world was found to be 32.2% (95%CI = 27.70–41.73%), I 2 = 97.3%, and p value < 0.001). Conclusion The pooled prevalence of COVID-19-induced ARDS was found to be high. The virus remains a global burden because its genetic causes are constantly changing or it mutated throughout the pandemic to emerge a new strain of infection. Therefore, interventions such as massive vaccination, early case detection, screening, isolation, and treatment of the cases need to be implemented to tackle its severity.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.039
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.277
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.175 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207